Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her father’s, Mr C’s, financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained the Council failed to tell her what she could or could not legally do with her father’s, Mr C’s money when acting as his Power of Attorney. Mrs B says the Council failed to consider that she and her family lived in the home when it undertook a financial assessment in 2017. This resulted in Mr C selling his home to pay for his care in 2018. Mrs B says she has had to move home and has incurred unnecessary expenses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information and documentation from Mrs B’s representative and the Council. I sent Mrs B’s representatives a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council says it discussed Mr C finances in December 2017 in the presence of Mrs B and her brother. The Council says it explained Mr C required residential care and would be entitled to a Personal Expenditure Allowance (PEA), the rest of his capital and income would go towards to costs of his care. The Council says it completed a financial assessment in January 2018 confirming this.
5. In May 2018, Mrs B’s brother contacted the Council to say Mr C’s property had been sold and he would pay the care home directly for his care. The Council says this ended its involvement at the time.
6. The Council says it was asked to complete a further assessment in July 2019 when Mr C’s finances fell below the threshold for full funding. Following a request for further information regarding Mr C’s finances it found monies had been paid to Mrs B and her brother. The Council said this should not have happened and considered Mr C still had the money for the purpose of charging for his care.
7. Mrs B says the Council should have told her what she could spend Mr C’s money on or should have reported the spending to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) sooner if it was concerned. Mrs B’s representatives complained to the Council in August 2019 and Mrs B complained to the Council in April 2020. The Council responded in September 2020.
8. We could not say what the Council should have considered in the financial assessment in 2017. It would have been for Mrs B to have complained and taken legal advice at the time if she believed the Council were not considering her right to remain in the house. The house was sold in 2018. There is nothing for the Ombudsman to investigate regarding this point now.
9. It is not for the Council to give legal advice to attorney’s about how or how not to spend money they are legally responsible for. It would have been for Mrs B to ask the OPG for clarification on what she should give to family members if she was unclear. We could not say the Council’s decision to include money Mr C had prior to Mrs B gifting it, is administrative fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman